Listed below are Four forum posts, please help with a response to each one with works cited. Two topics: international relations and anthropology 250 In addition please help with an answer to the question at the bottom regarding the United Nations.
Anthropology response 1:
Of the four sub fields of Anthropology I would choose Archeology as my main sub field for my research project. Archeology, according to the AmericanAnthro.org website, is the, ?Study human culture by analyzing the objects people have made.? There are many ancient civilizations that have yet to be discovered and many civilizations that still have unknown methods and ideas. For my research project I would explore areas where items had been discovered, but there is no rational reason as to how these items got there. In order to accomplish this, the other sub fields of anthropology would be needed. Linguistic Anthropology would be needed to learn of location, methods, and history from the local civilizations. Cultural Anthropology is necessary for interaction with the civilization. It is important to learn the customs and traditions of the civilization that is helping in the research. Biological Anthropology will help in the research of the civilization existence, daily life, and what possibly happened to them. Archeology would help determine how the civilization lived, their beliefs, and tools that they used in daily life. Archeology, when used in conjunction with the other sub fields of anthropology, can provide an abundance of comprehensive research data. I would begin my research by compiling data found within historical archives or conduct an Ethnography myself. Fieldwork would be a major factor of my research so that I can begin to understand the similarities and differences among civilizations and piece together ideas about the civilization I am researching. I would conclude theories about the civilization and use the data I gathered to support my conclusion. My research would provide ground breaking knowledge of a civilization that once flourished and the demise it faced.
Anthropology response 2:
Franz Boas not only adopted the subfields of anthropology but also introduced the ideology of cultural relativism, which that the idea of a person’s values, beliefs, and practices should be understood based on that person’s own culture, rather judged on another person’s culture. The four subfields of anthropology include sociocultural, biological/ physical, archaeology, and linguistic. The question was to explain why these subfields are of importance to anthropology. Sociocultural anthropology explores and examines how people live in other parts of the world with similarities and differences in societies concerning race, sexuality, gender, etc. To understand the social norms and communicate with others in different parts of the world linguistic anthropology is implied or shared within sociocultural anthropology. Linguistic anthropology is the study in which language reflects and influences social life through defining patterns of communication, social groups, and cultural beliefs. Biological/ Physical anthropology provides the study of human development and behaviors. Archaeology is the study of the past humans and cultural from prehistoric to recent past, including material remains such as artifacts, architecture and landscapes. These subfields are essential to understanding all aspects of human identity, because they require necessary and important information from each subfield. The way we communicate and co-exist amongst others from different parts of the world requires the understanding of the social and cultural differences. The cultural and social differences stem from how humans adapt to different environments, development, and behavior. Understanding how humans develop and behave, you need a clear understanding of the past. These subfields are of importance to anthropology because you cannot have a clear and concise understanding with just one of these important subfields.
International Relations (International Organizations) response 1:
There are two words to describe the blog post about Sharpening Scholarly Skills can Enhance Professional Performance of Dr. Brannum and Dr. Drumhiller. These two words are scholarly and professionalism. Process and actively manage scholarly information in our projects is a skill we must have to succeed in the graduated studies. (Brannum and Drumhiller 2016) The reason is simple, anywhere is subjective and objective information. Subjective information can be produced by any magazine, newspaper, news or other sources with the intention to entertain, give an opinion or defend a partial idea. Objective information is facts studied by graduated professionals taking in consideration different sources of ideas to explain a problem or phenomenon to bring a solution or a whole conclusion. I brought the professionalism word because honestly, I can’t fit in a common political discussion where individuals argue with partial ideas and subjective information even I am studying Political Science. I barely talk because they always have difficulty to understand scholarly information that I studied already. They always judge myself as I am against them. Now I only let my words and observations to professionals. I am not saying, I am smarter than them, but only they are using the wrong sources of information or just basing their opinions on experiences. As professionals, we need to act apart from others and accept the challenge to give more and objective conclusions. (Brannum and Drumhiller 2016)
International Organizations exist with the evolution of alliances in the sense that in early history alliances they were temporary. The Internationalism always existed in shape of alliance, treaties, and agreements. (Iriye, Akira. 2002) Always been there but not in an organized way that we are living it today. Using realism theories in early history, internationalism is a way to show power to other countries allies. Until the end of World War II, where the Allies built the United Nations Security Council to preserve peace against extremist ideas as the military socialism that powerful countries adopted for the lack of help in the economic crisis. (Iriye, Akira. 2002) Now, the question is “ Given that states are self –interested actors, why do International Organizations exist?” Simply from the side of view of First World States, they organized since they have in common an economic, cultural or power interest to preserve the hegemonic peace state. (Iriye, Akira. 2002) Countries as United States of America, United Kingdom, Japan and main countries of European Union share the same economic and military ideas, instead to fight each other to control the world they join together and develop their states peacefully. From the Third world countries views states organized to match up and defend their self from stronger countries and to support each other in the case, the economy collapse or certain revolution occur in their states. (Iriye, Akira. 2002) Additionally, ideas of liberalism and feminism cross the national line and instead to wait for the nations to implement these ideas, the non-governmental organizations take place to implement and share the views in countries that lack these ideas. The idea to preserve human happiness with the creation of Human Rights are one of the examples that contrast the old realism military ideas. (Duffield, John. 2007) State are self-interest because the use the International organizations to seek information, studies, to identify new problems and solutions. (Stefeek, Jens 2013)
The international organizations most effective according to Steffek, Jens are the NGO’s since they motivated and push policies to IGO. Also IGO use constantly and even financed NGO’s to gain information, studies and research of problems and solutions. The IGO still the authorities in the international laws but NGO discover most the needs that the nations need to regulate and control the anarchy between the gaps of the nations. (Stefeek, Jens 2013) For example, The International Trade Union Confederation ITUC has close relations with the Global Union Federations and the Trade Union Advisory Committee to the OECD (TUAC). Additionally works closely with the International Labour Organisation and with several other UN Specialised Agencies. All of these means they transfer the idea of groups from trade unions all around the world motivating to change the policies of certain countries and reflect the Human Rights equally and gain the same image of developed countries. NGO transfer the solution to problems to the IGO and the IGO modify policies to transfer them to the states. In other words,International Organization is next level of law to stabilized nations translating Human rights, trades, and economicideas. In realism theory view IO’s are the way to control other nations under the most powerful countries. In the liberalism way is the way to tell other weak countries to develop and be successful than the most powerful countries. In the sociological view, we can say that NGO is the private sector protesting and the IGO is the public sector modifying their policies because democracy should be preserved. The most important IO organization is United Nations obviously since they control a lot of subdivisions under the UN but closing gaps between nations World Trade Organization which control and regulate trades between countries.
International Relations (International Organizations) response 2:
International Organizations (IO) exist to work in the seams between sovereign independent states. However, just because a state is sovereign does not mean that it does not exist in a community of nations where international cooperation in areas such as trade, security, the environment and other overlapping areas of policy are necessary. IO’s often times seek to bridge the gaps between rival or competing interests in an effort to find mutual beneficial common ground. This concept is particularly relevant when considering Realist International Relations Theory.
Realists posit that nations will do what is in the own narrow self interest which at some point inevitably leads to conflict. If one subscribes to this theory, then the argument for IO’s to try to smooth out differences and seek to make rival states see themselves as partners instead of competitors seems valid. However, realists would probably view the ability of IO’s to maintain the peace indefinitely as unachievable. A case in point may be the European Union. While the European has done a great job for the last 25-30 years of binding Europe together economically, realist would argue that a body like the EU has probably reached it’s limit in terms of finding common ground among the various member states who now seem to be pulling apart.
Neo-liberals on the other hand would tout the ability of IO’s to bridge gaps and find common ground particularly in the modern globalized and inter-connected world. In the modern world where nations so heavily depend on each other for either resource, labor or political support, neo-liberals believe that IO’s are the connective tissue that holds the various pieces together like ligaments connecting muscles.
It’s clear that IO’s exist to facilitate cooperation between the various nations of the world and to serve as forums for discussion and dialogue. The ultimate effectiveness of IO’s, I think, is still up in the air. In my opinion IO’s have a hard time dealing with the hard issues where great powers disagree weather that be trade (Think USA and China and currency manipulation), defense (think NATO and Russia’s various perspectives relative to Syria), or climate change (think big industrialized countries in relation to the Third World). It will be interesting to see how IO’s adapt to modern global issues like trans-national terrorism and climate change.
(2) What IOs, or kinds of IOs, do you find the most effective or necessary in international politics and why? Please differentiate between different types of IOs (e.g., IGOs, NGOs) to explain your answer.
I find IGO’s (International Government Organizations) to be more effective because they have the power and authority of a sovereign state behind them. For instance, the USAID supports official policy of the US Government and with that comes political influence and funding. USAID and other IGO’s are in effect arms of a national government. Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO’s) on the other hand, are private organizations. Many NGO’s are however well funded and respected. NGO’s such as Doctors Without Borders (Medicines Sans Frontiers) is a well respected organization, that because of it’s humanitarian and neutral stance is often able to gain access to areas where IGO’s are denied. NGO’s also are often times able to respond quicker because they don’t have to jump through the same bureaucratic hurdles as IGO’s. In the case of the United States for instance, Congress must approve funding for IGO’s to spend, which can be a lengthy and often times partisan issue. NGO’s on the other hand are able to allocate and spend money faster. Private industry is almost always faster (and more efficient) than a bureaucratic government. Still, IGO’s do speak with the authority of their government and because of this I believe them to ultimately be more effective.
Please answer this question:
Why do so many people think that the United Nations is ineffective?